Openbsd updating ports herpes dating site toronto

To be fair, I don't know whether it's a natural way to do things, or some trick I just remembered from past experience with rpms a long time ago.The dpkg/apt stuff has had less visible influence, though we may get some of our interactive choice features from them later.If you take a time-machine and look at the ports framework in Open BSD 3.9, you'll find that a lot of things have become way easier. And more seamless integration of ports and packages.

So, this acts as a fail-safe that reminds the port maintainer he HAS to do some work.

Likewise, packing-lists are not generated automatically, even though this is possible in 99% of the cases. We don't want ports done by people who do not understand the issues involved.

This would give the impression this is a one-man effort, but actually, I discussed a lot of issues with my friends, and I've had a lot of help testing things, and fixing stuff.

Naddy, Peter, Nikolai, JMC, Theo and Todd have been very helpful.

That was an independent re-discovery, but we end up having mechanisms very similar to what rpm does in the area.

Also, using checksums to figure out when to update configuration files is a feature we share with rpm.

It was obvious from the beginning the packing-list stuff had to be object-oriented, and getting that right was the most difficult effort.

One other fun design spec was to see how far I could get without adding a lot of new data structures (or cached data) to , I didn't want to redesign yet another script language, and so far it has proven succesful. Shared libraries are central to update issues and need explicit first-class support.

The newcomer, , directly comes from ideas I first saw in Ne Xt Step. Some packages just have issues in their current incarnations, and the `next' version can't cope with all issues present in today's packages.

In general, other package systems are mostly programs I read for design ideas, but the compromises are so vastly different there's little influence I can trace. In the past, some stuff was not very cohesive, and we had tens of little scripts that all did the same things over and over. You tell the software `okay, let's install stuff, but use this special funny area that's not really where you're going to end up'. This will get much smoother as we figure out what annotations we have to put into packages to make every update simple.

I've mostly read that code to make certain this was NOT what I wanted to do.

Tags: , ,